On 03/12/2013 02:24 PM, frowe_at_us.ibm.com wrote:
> You're correct, there are other ways to annotate an RA which can't be
> duplicated in ra.xml, and I didn't mean to make that the focus of the
> question. The point was, when the required-config-property element was
> added to the spec, it appears to have been intentionally limited to the
> AS javabean. When we deprecated the xml element in favor of @NotNull,
> we didn't apply that same limitation to the annotative version, was
> that intentional. Ie, does it make sense to allow RA developers to
> declare config properties for other RA javabean types as mandatory?
>
I think it makes sense, and we should add a note about the @NotNull on a
RA, MCF and AO object doesn't map to a <required-config-property>
element in the ra.xml - due to the schema restriction.
Best regards,
Jesper